Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behaviour model

Mast, Marianne Schmid

doi:10.1080/10463283.2010.486942

Cited by 58 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The interpersonal power and behavior model [23] also supports this finding and might be another explanation. This model claims that people with higher authority, power, or status are perceived as being more assertive, less pliable, and less persuadable.…”

Section: Discussion and Limitationssupporting

confidence: 66%

Social Comparison in MOOCs

Choi

Dowell

Brooks

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics &Amp; Knowledge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been limited research on how perceptions of socioeconomic status (SES) and opinion difference could influence peer feedback in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Using social comparison theory [12], we investigated the influence of ability and opinion-related factors on peer feedback text in a data science MOOC. Perceived SES of peers and the formality of written responses were used as the ability-related factor, while agreement between learners represented the opinion-related factor. We focused on understanding the behaviors of those learners who are most prevalent in MOOCs; those from high socioeconomic countries. Through two studies, we found a strong and repeated influence of agreement on affect and formality in feedback to peers. While a mediation effect of perceived SES was found, a significant effect of formality was not. This work contributes to an understanding of how social comparison theory can be operationalized in online peer writing environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Limitationssupporting

confidence: 66%

Social Comparison in MOOCs

Choi

Dowell

Brooks

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics &Amp; Knowledge

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also operationalized observers' verticality in two different ways: as an enduring personality trait that was measured in terms of personal sense of power, socioeconomic status (SES), or prenatal testosterone exposure (a correlate of dominance) in Studies 1 to 6; and as an ephemeral, transient state that was experimentally manipulated as a position of power, status, or dominance in Studies 7 to 12 (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985;Hall et al, 2005;Hall, Schmid Mast, & Latu, 2014;Schmid Mast, 2010). A meta-analysis across these studies revealed that individuals were less likely to afford power to norm violators than to norm abiders, and that this effect was stronger among individuals with higher trait-but not state-verticality.…”

Section: Hypotheses and Overview Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How norm violations shape social hierarchies: Those who stand on top block norm violators from rising up

Stamkou

Kleef

Homan

et al. 2016

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Norm violations engender both negative reactions and perceptions of power from observers. We addressed this paradox by examining whether observers’ tendency to grant power to norm followers versus norm violators is moderated by the observer’s position in the hierarchy. Because norm violations threaten the status quo, we hypothesized that individuals higher in a hierarchy (high verticality) would be less likely to grant power to norm violators compared to individuals lower in the hierarchy (low verticality). In 14 studies ( Ntotal = 1,704), we measured participants’ trait verticality (sense of power, socioeconomic status, testosterone) and manipulated state verticality (power position, status, dominance). A meta-analysis revealed that higher ranked participants granted less power to norm violators than lower ranked individuals, presumably because the former support social stratification. Interestingly, these effects occurred for trait but not state verticality. Overall, negative reactions to deviants may be driven by hierarchy-maintenance motives by those in privileged positions.

show abstract

“…The first involves the power differential between the clergy and other church members. As research in social psychology reveals, differences in power can have a profound impact on the nature and frequency of social interaction (Mast, 2010). Second, because rank-and-file church members far outnumber pastors in a congregation, the opportunity to find a suitable source of informal support is greater in the pews than in the pulpit.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Communities of Faith: A Preliminary Investigation

Krause

Hayward

2013

Journal of Religion, Spirituality & Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous references are made in the literature to communities of faith, yet there have been relatively few efforts to measure them empirically. The purpose of this study is to address this gap in the literature by estimating a higher-order confirmatory factor model that consists of two tiers. Seven dimensions of church-based social support make up the first tier: emotional support received from rank-and-file church members, emotional support given to fellow church members, tangible support received from rank-and-file church members, tangible support given to fellow congregants, spiritual support received from fellow church members, emotional support received from a pastor, and tangible support received from a pastor. It is hypothesized that these first-order constructs are driven by a higher-order latent variable that denotes a community of faith. Data from a nationwide survey reveal that, for the sample taken as a whole, emotional support represents the way in which a community of faith is most likely to be manifest while tangible support is a less critical component. Moreover, the results indicate that a community of faith is more likely to reside in support exchanged among rank-and-file church members than support received from a pastor.

show abstract

Interpersonal behaviour and social perception in a hierarchy: The interpersonal power and behaviour model

Cited by 58 publications

References 81 publications

Social Comparison in MOOCs

Social Comparison in MOOCs

How norm violations shape social hierarchies: Those who stand on top block norm violators from rising up

Measuring Communities of Faith: A Preliminary Investigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About